Several plant protection products (PPPs) are now effectively banned in the EU, after the European Parliament approved revisions to the regulations governing their use, the Pesticides Directive 91/414/EC.
While environmental lobbyists have hailed the move, others believe it will worsen food scarcity and block disease prevention in Europe and the developing world.
Paul Hardman, industry affairs manager for the Citrus Growers’ Association (CGA) in South Africa, said the approach could work against Integrated Pest Management (IPM) which the South African citrus industry has implemented for over 15 years.
“IPM seeks to use the right tool at the right time,” explained Hardman. “The substitution principle may require growers to take preventative measures, such as spraying regardless, rather than an integrated approach of only spraying if necessary.”
The South African citrus industry, which made comments on the proposal at various points during the revision, are disappointed the final version didn’t address all the concerns raised by themselves and other producer representative bodies within and outside the EU.
Hardman said he has two main areas of concern. The first are the new “cut-off” criteria. “The new regulations set new parameters under which PPPs will be deemed suitable for use or not within the EU,” he explained. “While setting new criteria isn’t necessarily a problem, the criteria the EU have decided on are problematic and might well lead to confusion rather than simplifying the approval process.”
A second concern is with a substitution principle, whereby the regulations require “harsher” PPPs to be replaced with “softer” ones. “Who decides what is ‘harsh’?” asked Hardman. ”How do you deal with resistance problems that might develop when only “softer” PPPs are used? Surely if an active product is approved for use, whether “harsh” or “soft”, and used according to the relevant practices, the argument for substitution is almost redundant?”
The regulations could also potentially strain trade relations because some PPPs will be permitted for use in exporting countries, while EU producers won’t have access to the same tools. “Retailers may hear the word “banned” and simply apply EU requirements to exporting countries,” said Hardman.
Posing a disease risk
The London-based Campaign for Fighting Diseases (CFD) brands the regulations as “arbitrary and capricious”, saying pesticides are a cost-effective means of controlling pests posing risks to crops, livestock, human health and property.
The CFD believes the legislation would likely be a major setback to the control of vector-borne disease such as malaria and dengue fever, which rely heavily on insecticides, and could undermine incentives to research and develop new insecticides.
“There’s a risk the EU’s strict maximum residue levels for imported agricultural products would change in line with the legislation, forcing exporting countries to abandon insecticides for disease control,” said Hardman. “This would be a tragic loss of effective weapons for improved public health for millions of people in poorer parts of the world at risk from disease.”
The new regulations are likely to be phased in over a period of six months to two years, depending on the specific PPPs. “South African producers will be affected in years to come as distributors withdraw restricted PPPs,” said Hardman. – Robyn Joubert
